Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

General Discussion

Showing Original Post only (View all)


(18,496 posts)
Sun Dec 28, 2014, 03:10 PM Dec 2014

Should plural marriage (more than one partner) be legalized? [View all]

Please add your thoughts.

45 votes, 2 passes | Time left: Unlimited
1: No, government recognizes only a single first partner but taking subsequent partners should not be a criminal act
5 (11%)
2: No, taking a subsequent partner is a breach of the commitment to the first partner
9 (20%)
3: Yes, choice of the number of partners should be up to those involved
29 (64%)
4: Yes, but only women may have multiple partners
2 (4%)
5: Yes, but only men may have multiple partners
0 (0%)
Show usernames
Disclaimer: This is an Internet poll
156 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
why not? belzabubba333 Dec 2014 #1
I'd say do away with the institution legally first treestar Dec 2014 #2
IMHO, not a bad idea... discntnt_irny_srcsm Dec 2014 #71
so you want to eliminate marriage laws and replace them with the same thing CreekDog Dec 2014 #87
This is an argument that rose during the marriage equality debate Algernon Moncrieff Dec 2014 #92
Why is it... discntnt_irny_srcsm Dec 2014 #95
I went to a clerk, paid for one document, and signed it in front of witnesses at the church Algernon Moncrieff Dec 2014 #102
I think that is what will happen in the long run treestar Dec 2014 #97
Not particularly treestar Dec 2014 #96
Yes if all parties involved are consenting and avebury Dec 2014 #3
This was one of my thoughts discntnt_irny_srcsm Dec 2014 #98
Lawyers would love it tularetom Dec 2014 #4
The life insurance and retirement actuaries would have a nightmare though. TexasTowelie Dec 2014 #27
Are the kids on their own too? former9thward Dec 2014 #100
How is that? Almost 50% of all births are to unmarried partners already. The CS system in kelly1mm Jan 2015 #126
You are saying 50% is a good thing??? former9thward Jan 2015 #131
No, it is not much harder to establish child support without a marriage, at least in MD, kelly1mm Jan 2015 #132
It is far more likely the father former9thward Jan 2015 #134
You seem to be saying that men only work (or more men work) when they are married than kelly1mm Jan 2015 #135
Father's do not get custody execept in rare former9thward Jan 2015 #136
In Maryland, in 2013, fathers received primary custody in 52% of all contested child custody cases. kelly1mm Jan 2015 #137
Futher, why do you think if the mother is fit, she gets the kids? 1) that is not the law in ANY kelly1mm Jan 2015 #138
I do not do family law former9thward Jan 2015 #141
I think you may have missed the 23% of ALL cases in MD for 2013 where fathers get primary custody. kelly1mm Jan 2015 #144
You proved my point. former9thward Dec 2015 #155
you don't do family law, you just comment on it CreekDog Dec 2015 #154
No. I don't . former9thward Dec 2015 #156
It would be an ethical, logistical, and legal nightmare... fix those problems then we'll talk (nt) LostOne4Ever Dec 2014 #5
No it would not. dilby Dec 2014 #6
Okay LostOne4Ever Dec 2014 #9
Why is the text like that? 951-Riverside Dec 2014 #23
Formatting I do to make my post stand out LostOne4Ever Dec 2014 #24
Your posts definitely stand out Capt. Obvious Dec 2014 #39
I also find it off-putting dumbcat Dec 2014 #44
I skip over his posts and read the responses Capt. Obvious Dec 2014 #47
Some people like it some don't. If you don't Ill make sure to reply to you using normal formatting. LostOne4Ever Dec 2014 #53
If you don't like it let me know and I will make my replies to you in normal text LostOne4Ever Dec 2014 #54
Well I like it pipi_k Dec 2014 #46
Thank you very much! LostOne4Ever Dec 2014 #57
Boffo! LostOne4Ever rock Dec 2014 #52
Thank you! LostOne4Ever Dec 2014 #58
None of these issues is unique to polygamy. Orsino Dec 2014 #42
Every case of polygamy I have heard of LostOne4Ever Dec 2014 #60
Re: "...I have heard of... discntnt_irny_srcsm Dec 2014 #65
Haven't these cases also turned into big state-supported Ilsa Dec 2014 #80
Your fonts and color choices are great ChazII Dec 2014 #56
Thanks again LostOne4Ever Dec 2014 #59
All of those issues are less complicated than you realize Nevernose Dec 2014 #26
Depends on what you mean it is legal LostOne4Ever Dec 2014 #61
Gay marriage used to be an ethical, logistical, and legal nightmare and we still fought for their liberal_at_heart Jan 2015 #149
Start having parades, and demand equality ... JoePhilly Dec 2014 #7
This is one of the key issues which may bury plural marriage discntnt_irny_srcsm Dec 2014 #62
i haven't heard the term plural marriage used CreekDog Dec 2014 #83
Too complicated if more than one partner is recognized by law. Nye Bevan Dec 2014 #8
Now toss in child custody for good measure. Nuclear Unicorn Dec 2014 #13
'Complicated' isn't an excuse to deny people the right Bonx Dec 2014 #19
Just because someone says a thing is complicated doesn't mean it isn't complicated. Nuclear Unicorn Dec 2014 #20
I'm not sure what your point is. Bonx Dec 2014 #25
Same sex marriage is in no way more legally complicated than hetero marriage gollygee Jan 2015 #119
Depends on the tax effects dumbcat Dec 2014 #10
How would you feel about... discntnt_irny_srcsm Dec 2014 #63
why are you so against laws relating to marriage? CreekDog Dec 2014 #84
People can schtup and love whoever they want. geek tragedy Dec 2014 #11
And I say... pipi_k Dec 2014 #12
I think it should be legal for people to live in whatever arrangement they choose, if everyone is a Warren DeMontague Dec 2014 #14
Marry 12 people, if that's what you choose to do. bigwillq Dec 2014 #15
#3 Boreal Dec 2014 #16
I have no problem with it tabbycat31 Dec 2014 #17
This represents a dramatic enforced change in laws, so it's nothing the government should recognize. Yo_Mama Dec 2014 #18
How many mothers-in-law do you really want?!?!?!? ManiacJoe Dec 2014 #21
And anniversary gifts to buy? Nye Bevan Dec 2014 #22
Somewhere, Joseph Smith and Brigham Young are laughing their asses off. cherokeeprogressive Dec 2014 #28
What happens and who pays whom when the inevitable STD gets passed around? TexasTowelie Dec 2014 #29
Tax code nightmare. Starry Messenger Dec 2014 #30
Option 3 I really don't care JonLP24 Dec 2014 #31
Marriage can be overrated. WheelWalker Dec 2014 #32
And undervalued. Sweeney Dec 2014 #34
It should not be allowed. Sweeney Dec 2014 #33
Message auto-removed Name removed Dec 2014 #36
The effect is the same: Sweeney Dec 2014 #37
Make it 10 men and one woman Capt. Obvious Dec 2014 #40
Except for number two on the hit list. Sweeney Dec 2014 #45
So what's the difference between pipi_k Dec 2014 #48
The socially un regulate sexuality of some men is a problem. Sweeney Dec 2014 #67
A look into ENDOGAMY, the practice of marrying within a specific ethnic group, class or social group appalachiablue Dec 2014 #70
I am aware that Jewish people were exempted from such bans because Sweeney Dec 2014 #74
Until railroads most people never traveled much beyond 20 miles from their communities. The links appalachiablue Dec 2014 #75
Many believe Elizabeth was an xy female, sterile, masculine in many respects. Sweeney Dec 2014 #79
That seems plausible for Eliz. At least she lived and was pretty healthy unlike her younger bro. appalachiablue Dec 2014 #82
Syphilis which supposedly can only be contacted when the symptoms are showing Sweeney Dec 2014 #88
I actually wasn't intending pipi_k Dec 2014 #104
We have to find a way for such marriages to become undone... krispos42 Dec 2014 #35
+1. Nt riderinthestorm Dec 2014 #41
Hah!!! pipi_k Dec 2014 #49
But we have to have the debate first krispos42 Dec 2014 #50
Having been involved in a polyamorous relationship before for quite some time Blue_Adept Dec 2014 #38
I feel the same way about this that I do about drugs and other similar 'sin' issues stevenleser Dec 2014 #43
I Voted for #1 ProfessorGAC Dec 2014 #51
They can do that now, without marriage. If you have an unrelated SO and you pay for their kelly1mm Jan 2015 #127
Why? SickOfTheOnePct Jan 2015 #140
I passed because I do not care about the marriage part. What I do care about is that the extra jwirr Dec 2014 #55
Are you okay with the current tax benefit for marriage? n/t discntnt_irny_srcsm Dec 2014 #64
Do you mean that married couples get a break that singles do not get? I do not know enough jwirr Dec 2014 #66
For example... discntnt_irny_srcsm Dec 2014 #68
I am sure that the Texas thing really ended up costing the taxpayers a fortune and did not change jwirr Dec 2014 #69
I'd say no, although conceivably the whole thing could be done consensually CreekDog Dec 2014 #72
Thanks for the feedback... discntnt_irny_srcsm Dec 2014 #73
Why do you ask this question though? CreekDog Dec 2014 #85
Seems like a fair question... discntnt_irny_srcsm Dec 2014 #91
How does society "underwrite" the arrangement of marriage? CreekDog Dec 2014 #110
when are your taxes higher due to marriage? discntnt_irny_srcsm Dec 2014 #113
There is a MASSIVE marriage penalty in the ACA (Obamacare). Two single people kelly1mm Jan 2015 #128
I answered, how about you? discntnt_irny_srcsm Dec 2014 #115
this is one thought about what you're proposing: CreekDog Jan 2015 #120
Thanks... discntnt_irny_srcsm Jan 2015 #122
Well you don't want government recognition of marriage CreekDog Jan 2015 #123
I suppose discntnt_irny_srcsm Jan 2015 #124
Ooh Ooh, I know, I know! NYC_SKP Jan 2015 #147
Plural marriage has been used way to often to subjugate women. Agnosticsherbet Dec 2014 #76
I've heard that argument Algernon Moncrieff Dec 2014 #93
In that instance, they are wiling. Agnosticsherbet Dec 2014 #103
I would not be willing to strip women (or men) of agency due to the fact that some are taken kelly1mm Jan 2015 #129
as a guy i have no problem either way Ramses Dec 2014 #77
The potential legal knots not withstanding, 3catwoman3 Dec 2014 #78
This message was self-deleted by its author pathansen Dec 2014 #81
i think a previous poll question you asked is relevant to this discussion CreekDog Dec 2014 #86
I'd like to see 'equal protection (and treatment) under the law discntnt_irny_srcsm Dec 2014 #94
Head of household is not temporary (so long as you qualify) You are thinking of qualifying widow(er) kelly1mm Jan 2015 #130
Not touching this one with a 10 foot pole davidpdx Dec 2014 #89
I can't think of a single case in modern history where this type of situation underahedgerow Dec 2014 #90
All one has to do is research the very sad stories of women who endure polygamy TexasMommaWithAHat Dec 2014 #99
For the record... discntnt_irny_srcsm Dec 2014 #101
again, why if you're against the government recognizing marriage at all CreekDog Dec 2014 #105
According to the poll... discntnt_irny_srcsm Dec 2014 #106
but you've said you're against those benefits CreekDog Dec 2014 #107
I like survivor benefits discntnt_irny_srcsm Dec 2014 #108
So if we make all tax consequences of marriage neutral, then you'd be satisfied CreekDog Dec 2014 #109
i'd be okay with that discntnt_irny_srcsm Dec 2014 #111
Yes and you mentioned Warren Jeffs CreekDog Dec 2014 #112
so would I discntnt_irny_srcsm Dec 2014 #114
Marriage as an institution benefits society as a whole TexasMommaWithAHat Dec 2014 #116
I like marriage discntnt_irny_srcsm Dec 2014 #117
Yes, but it should not receive all the same benefits. Donald Ian Rankin Jan 2015 #118
Inheritace taxes between spouses are $0. You could give your spouse 5 trillion dollars kelly1mm Jan 2015 #133
Why is the government involved with an individual's interpersonal relationships anyway? PowerToThePeople Jan 2015 #121
+1 liberal_at_heart Jan 2015 #150
I'm not sure how I feel about this, Trillo Jan 2015 #125
Yep SickOfTheOnePct Jan 2015 #139
Long history of abuse with multiple wives n2doc Jan 2015 #142
Then we would have to outlaw all marriage because domestic abuse is a huge problem in marriage liberal_at_heart Jan 2015 #151
I just do not get the willingness of some progressives to strip others of agency. Paternalism kelly1mm Jan 2015 #152
Just curious - why are you asking? Is there a movement to allow them? jwirr Jan 2015 #143
They exist; it's illegal; people are doing it anyway discntnt_irny_srcsm Jan 2015 #145
Thank you. I agree. jwirr Jan 2015 #146
Of course. Consenting adults should be able to be married. liberal_at_heart Jan 2015 #148
Yes! Why not? If people are happy to be in a polygamous relationship, why should we care? BlueCaliDem Jan 2015 #153
Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Should plural marriage (m...